- Nov 15, 2006
- 4,270
- Thread starter
- #21
So disagreeing with a verdict means I want mob rule? I think I might have a little <sigh> here as well
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Nottingham murders
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
So disagreeing with a verdict means I want mob rule? I think I might have a little <sigh> here as well
The courts have decided that he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
What difference does that make? In the case covered by the Jury, the man admitted that he killed his wife, and that was never in dispute, so it doesn't matter whether it's on camera or not. The comparison makes sense because you just want it to be murder because you don't like it, regardless of what the actual law is.
Firstly, these people weren't murdered. Secondly, I am not being sympathetic towards the killer.
You have no idea what the law is do you. You clearly don't understand it at all.
As far as I know, attempted manslaughter doesn't exist in the UK. Attempting to kill someone is just called attempted murder, even though actually killing them may not be described as murder. It's just a quirk of the wording of our legal system.
This person is guilty of unlawfully killing people, and he may never be free again. Whether it's called murder or manslaughter due to his mental health is really semantics. That doesn't make the families happy, but that is the law in this country.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,688
Can you attempt manslaughter?
And you appear not to understand the idea that attempted murder, which is unsuccessful (in terms of killing someone), turns into manslaughter when successful basically defies all logic. Yeh, it might be a quirk of the legal system. Big deal, but still stupid.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,947
Attempt implies intention - so yes, in Voluntary manslaughter and also in an attempted murder charge (ie the intent to kill) which is then reduced to a manslaughter conviction in sentencing because of a partial defence (eg diminished responsibility, loss of control)
The law of ’Attempt’ would obviously not apply to Involuntary Manslaughter - that would be illogical.
This must mean that someone diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia can’t murder people
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,947
No it doesn’t mean that at all - it means they will still be charged with murder but have their sentencing reduced to a manslaughter conviction through diminished responsibility (the burden of proof is on the defence)
herecomesaregular
We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
I've worked with many people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (some forensic patients, people with a mental disorder who are currently undergoing, or have previously undergone, legal or court proceedings). Terrible illness, often misunderstood because of awful cases like this one. How this chap was detained under the MH act and released after a short period with meds to self-administer, again and again, is a terrible indication of the state of MH services in the country. Many people will be blamed, likely working in under funded and under staffed services (with extremely high sickness absence levels), with huge case loads and unsympathetic bosses and an unsympathetic public. This incident of an awful murder probably could have been avoided, certainly should have been avoided. I have great sympathy for the victims - wrong place at the wrong time, incredibly incredibly unlucky - their family, the staff who tried to keep track of him and the killer himself (who should never have been living in the community).
I do understand but that's the f***ing law! It's just semantics. They could add a new law called attempted killing, when someone attempts to kill someone when not fully in control of their actions, but the punishment would probably be the same as that for attempted murder, so adding court time to prove whether or not someone was in control when attempting but failing to kill someone seems, when the punishment will be the same, like a waste of court time.
By all means start campaigning for 'attempted killing' to be added to our laws. But right now it's not there, so just accept him being guilty of attempted murder, does not then make him guilty of murder where he did actually kill people.
So
Last edited:
Ok and thank you for your brief yet articulate reply
They could also murder someone when not suffering from their condition.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Well said. A terrible situation all round.
It's almost as if this harrowing case can't be boiled down to 6 words by a bunch of non criminal lawyers who weren't in court throughout the trial.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Far more important in stopping it happening again than the wording of the conviction IMHO.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Every trial is unique, and has to be judged on evidence alone. I’m not sure why that needs spelling out.
Molango's visa
Molango's visa
I'm happy that verdicts aren't reached by social media polls.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
I never get these sort of ‘pick one’ decisions as it simply isn’t that simple and we also don’t have all the facts. The simple answer is that nobody knows at all. Probably only the fella himself but even he may not know what he was thinking. It’s a tough debate, but one I don’t like picking a side over. The one fact that is important and incredibly sad is that 3 innocent people lost their lives.
Barnaby Webber's mother was on R4 earlier this week. She is devastated by the verdict.
She pointed out that Calocane had carried out meticulous planning prior to the attacks. He knew, ahead of his actions, that he was intending to kill. This was NOT a spur of the moment psychotic episode where he had a momentary loss of control. This was a planned, pre-meditated attack.
That's murder in my book.
She pointed out that Calocane had carried out meticulous planning prior to the attacks. He knew, ahead of his actions, that he was intending to kill. This was NOT a spur of the moment psychotic episode where he had a momentary loss of control. This was a planned, pre-meditated attack.
That's murder in my book.